Roanoke Times is at it again

This is a discussion on Roanoke Times is at it again within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; They never miss a change to use wording to create anti-RKBA emotions.
They never met a dig at 2A they didn't like.
1) Front Page: ...

Gun rights shouldn't trump public safety
By William McCarthy | McCarthy, of Salem, was born, raised and attended college in west central Indiana. He is selfemployed as a computer tech and freelance writer.

Gun violence is nothing new in our society, indeed in the United States. Nearly everyone knows about the killings at Columbine High School, Northern Illinois University and, most notably, Virginia Tech. All of these incidents are considered unthinkable tragedies. The public recoils in horror at each successive incident. Or do they? Are we becoming anesthetized to this sort of violent crime?

Memorial services in honor of the victims are becoming commonplace, but these events do not undo the damage. Social behavior experts tell us that movies, television and video games are the cause of these random and heinous acts.

Others say it is the permissive, too tolerant, instant gratification mores that society has adopted over the past 40 or 50 years. Another perspective is that guns have become way too accessible. All of these viewpoints have merit.

The media, our legislators, local officials, law enforcement and, most importantly, the general public all bear some responsibility for effecting change that will ultimately achieve the desired result -- namely a reduction in gun-related violent crime. Talk is cheap. Finger-pointing and recriminations are counterproductive.

Gun-related violence is not endemic to any social strata. It is perpetrated during war, hunting accidents, suicides, by criminals and against domestic partners and family. Gun violence permeates the very fabric of our existence. It reduces us to a less civilized way of life.

Why then, can't an effective solution to this problem be found? If our government is able to protect us from foreign terrorists, why can't it protect us from the domestic kind?

While we cultivate this gun advocacy at home, we are, at the same time, the leading exporters of munitions in our hemisphere and around the world. What is so hard about restricting the sale and use of firearms? No one group has the right to unduly influence and jeopardize the public safety. No one issue can be allowed to compromise the public health and safety. I am quite sure that these last two statements would be fully endorsed by the Founding Fathers.

Gun ownership is not a constitutional prerogative or imperative in the same sense as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can any of these three rights be legitimately observed when we daily fear for our lives?

"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."

The Roanoke Times is what it is. Doesn't surprise me that they're spewing anti-2A under the guise of protecting citizens.

Originally Posted by DaveH

"Shooter sought in police slaying."

"Man out on bond for police assault and child rape sought in police slaying."

Yeah. Why not simply tell the truth, plainly: "Judge releases felon, who is now sought for rape and murder."

But, nooooooo! That would put the judge's head on the block for letting the poor (alleged) murderer and rapist go. That wouldn't be fair.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

Gun violence is nothing new in our society ... Columbine High School, Northern Illinois University and ... Virginia Tech.

Murderers decided to lash out. In these incidents, the tool selected by the criminals happened to be the firearm. However, no gun got up and shot anybody. Almost certainly, if these murderers had simply had another choice of weapons, they would have found a way to harm others.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

Are we becoming anesthetized to this sort of violent crime?

Some are becoming to naively blinded by the concept that inanimate objects are the explanation for the murderous actions of violent humans.

Spoons didn't make Rosie O'Donnell fat. Cars didn't fling the last DUI into the crowded bus stop full of children. Firearms didn't change the mind of Murderer #216 and cause him to be a murderer ... anymore than his car used to drive to the venue or his spoon used for that morning's breakfast cereal.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

Memorial services in honor of the victims are becoming commonplace, but these events do not undo the damage.

And yet, Roanoke Times, you somehow believe that disarming me will? Or, that disarming me ahead of crime against me will protect me?

The most-sure method of halting the damage is to be able to stop the violence at the moment it boils over. You can't do that by sticking your head in the sand. You can't do that very well by whipping out your finger and threatening to call somebody who is currently five miles away. You have somewhat of a chance if you, yourself, are armed and reasonably well-trained to defend against violent attack. Anything else is reliance on crystal ball, prayer and pixie dust.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

Social behavior experts tell us that movies, television and video games are the cause of these random and heinous acts.

Such people aren't very intelligent.

The murderers are the cause. Their lack of personal responsibility and failure as human beings is the cause. Everyone is to some degree molded by bad burritos that morning, the loud and incessant honking from the car behind us, the third grade teacher, or the intolerant boob we met in high school. Life has had some impact. So? Cope. Or not. But one's third grade teacher's position on the rape and pillage of North America during "westward expansion" had little more to do with one's world view than films one has seen.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

The media, our legislators, local officials, law enforcement and, most importantly, the general public all bear some responsibility for effecting change that will ultimately achieve the desired result ...

I desire the result of reduced threat to me and mine. Praying that (a) a criminal is going to allow me to use the telephone and that (b) help will arrive from five miles away in time to stop the violence against me is naive beyond words.

I desire the result of reduced threat to me and mine. The only way I see to improve the odds when attacked, at the moment of attack, is to be able to resist the attack until such time as help can arrive to assist me. And the only way I can see to achieve that is to be armed. How does disarming me ahead of crime help me resist crime against me? Bueller? Bueller??

Because it cannot even be identified properly, so long as it's being called "gun-related violence," as if the gun were the problem. MURDERERS are the problem, and our inability to teach them properly is the problem. That starts at home, is somewhat altered via how we assist through school work, and ends at home. It's failing, miserably so. Murderers, and what appears to be the majority of others, have little regard for personal responsibility, for integrity, for doing what's right. Buick cars aren't problematic; nor are Dansk spoons or SIG firearms. MURDERERS are the problem, as is how we're training, teaching and treating them.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

If our government is able to protect us from foreign terrorists, why can't it protect us from the domestic kind?

"They" aren't. It's even less likely when speaking of "domestic" types of terrorism: crime, street crime, of the sort we see every day in every town in America.

Some protection is possible when one can see the attacker coming. That applies to short-range attacks as well as long-range. When large "terrorist" cells or organizations mount large-scale planning, training and execution for attacks against others, it can be hard to completely hide the tracks made during the prep. When someone lunges out from behind a tree, one doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of information or advance warning. In such situations, you either are able to withstand attack until help can be called ... or, you aren't. Decide, 'cause you only get one shot at this.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

What is so hard about restricting the sale and use of firearms? No one group has the right to unduly influence and jeopardize the public safety.

It's damnably easy. Just not in the way you (RT) think. The tough part is to do it in such a manner as to stop providing arms to criminals WITHOUT disarming upstanding people.

Victim Disarmament defeats the entire purpose by tossing the baby out with the bath water. Any disarmament of criminals MUST find a way to coexist without disarming victims ahead of crimes against them. It must, else we simply end up (a) failing to disarm criminals, (b) failing to stop criminals from committing crimes, and (c) only end up making it practically impossible for people to withstand attack until the cavalry can arrive.

Originally Posted by RoanokeTimes

Gun ownership is not a constitutional prerogative or imperative in the same sense as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can any of these three rights be legitimately observed when we daily fear for our lives?

In the presence of an upraised knife, it's bloody difficult to defend unless one is armed and trained with something at least as capable.

One cannot pursue one's life or liberty if these things are easily taken by any two-bit robber, rapist or murderer who comes along.

Praying to the god of indefensibility gets upstanding citizens nowhere but disarmed and incapable of thwarting attack.

We must find another way than going after the defensive weapons of upstanding citizens in a manner that utterly fails to stop criminals from obtaining arms and attacking us anyway. We must find a way to disarm criminals; find a way to incarcerate or eliminate criminals permanently once they prove themselves inhuman or unworthy of living amongst us; and find a way to instill a strong and undying sense of personal responsibility in the hearts and minds of upstanding people, again, such that NOBODY will be allowed to take from us the life, liberty and core pursuits that are so central to being human and alive. Without that, I fear that we'll sink to anarchy and fail as a society.

Gun ownership is not a constitutional prerogative or imperative in the same sense as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can any of these three rights be legitimately observed when we daily fear for our lives?

They got that part somewhat right. The last sentence is one of the reasons I carry a gun and support the 2nd Amendment.

I wrote a letter.

I wrote a letter. 30 mins I will never get back the rest of my life but someone has to take a stand no matter how small the fight.
Dear Debbie Meade at the Roanoke Times,

Under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution it grants your company the unalienable right to freely express and share information with the public as the press. I am forced to question the journalistic accuracy of the claims that are made by William McCarthy. In the article "Gun rights shouldn't trump public safety" there are many points the writer makes with no accurate information or evidence to back up the claims he made. Claims such as "If our government is able to protect us from foreign terrorists, why can't it protect us from the domestic kind?". Is it not clear that the 2nd amendment of our Constitution was, and in plain English, designed as to give the right to citizens to keep and bear those same arms they keep in order to protect them selves from those whom seek to harm and destroy life. Was it not also written to give the people the means to defend themselves from oppressive government and infringement of unalienable freedoms?

Your writers comments about the 2nd Amendment and his clear lack of regard for actual written history sickens me and I am very sure other readers as well. It is clear that when sharing opinion that one must respect history as it is written and not as he/she would choose to have us think it should have been written.

The writer says" I am quite sure that these last two statements would be fully endorsed by the Founding Fathers".

He then follows up with, "Gun ownership is not a constitutional prerogative or imperative in the same sense as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can any of these three rights be legitimately observed when we daily fear for our lives?".

If gun ownership is not a constitutional prerogative then why do our founding fathers clearly state, once again in plain English, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

This writer whom is supported by your paper and who's article is clearly biased against supporting our founding documents and the freedoms in which they provide the great citizens of the United States of America.

As a reader of your paper I urge you to reconsider this article as it is degrading and defacing our constitution and bill of rights.

As a veteran whom also fought to defend this great nation against people who are sought after our destruction I am outraged that your staff would let an article like this make it to print. It is a clearly obvious sign to the public that your paper in fact does not support the freedoms that the constitution affords us all including the freedom of press.

There fore I urge you to review and reconsider the article in question or at a minimum challenge the writer of the paper to backup claims that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a constitutional prerogative using actual evidence to solidify his claim. I would also like to challenge the author to provide evidence showing the public where law abiding citizens are responsible for the multitude of crimes committed in this country using a firearm and please show statistics where crime rates have actually been diminished due to strict gun control policies being enforced.

Be careful of the quality of opinions you choose to publish.

Here is a direct link to the article in question: Gun rights shouldn't trump public safety

Most anti's like to spout off that our government should "protect" the public like they "protect" us from foreign attack. What they don't realize is that GUNS are the reason we are protected from foreign invasion or attack. GUNS are what keep America free. GUNS - guns that are in the hands of our military, police, and civilians.

When did they become way too accessible? They are definitely less accessible now than they were 75 years ago. Now we have background checks, restricted lists of weapons, Federally Licensed Firearms dealers. All of these have moved to make firearms more difficult to obtain. I just don't see any evidence to back up this writers claim.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this commentary. I would like to correct what appears to be one mistaken conclusion on your part: You refer often to the author of the commentary as "our" writer; in fact, this was a guest commentary. The author has no relationship with The Roanoke Times and, as with all the commentary published in our letters and on our Commentary page, the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial page.

Our goal on these pages is to provide a forum for conversation and a discussion about issues and ideas. We do not expect everyone to agree with every opinion expressed.

Given the depth of your disagreement with this particular piece, perhaps you would like to join the conversation and put together a response of 750 words or less? If so, we'd be happy to consider it for publication.

Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.See also Sheep

...
Given the depth of your disagreement with this particular piece, perhaps you would like to join the conversation and put together a response of 750 words or less? If so, we'd be happy to consider it for publication.

Thanks,
Dan

Wow, I wouldn't have expected a response like that.

Of course, he only said they would consider it - but maybe it's worth a shot.